Turner, A. P. (1996). Teaching for understanding - Myth or reality? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 67(4), 46-48.
Background: Since the popularity of the Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) model has grown, there is a need to assess its effectiveness in teaching students to play games. Purposes: Thus, the purposes of this study were to compare TGfU to the traditional technique-based approach. Methods: Participants were 24 sixth and 24 seventh grade students who were randomly assigned to one of four teaching groups (n = 12). Two teachers taught either 16 TGFU or traditional teaching sessions to each grade level. Traditional lessons followed the theme of a) introductory activity, b) skill and technique practice and c) game. The TGfU approach followed the theme of a) game, b) questions and challenges, c) game, d) more questions and challenges etc. Pre and post-test scores on three components were assessed. Skill development was assessed using the Henry Friedel Field Hockey Test (HFFHT), knowledge by a 30-item questionnaire and game play by a game play protocol when participants played 6 v 6 games. A 2 x 2 (Group x Time) MANOVA was used to examine difference between pre-test and post-test skill, knowledge and game play scores. Results: There were no significant differences in skill level between the two approaches. However, the TGfU group scored significantly higher on the declarative items on the knowledge test, and did significantly better than the traditional group in controlling the ball and in decision-making in game play. However, there was no difference in terms of game execution in game play. Conclusions: Findings from this article demonstrate that using the games approach can help develop student’s knowledge of field hockey, further aiding them to make better decisions in game play without being detrimental to skill levels.
Background: Since the popularity of the Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) model has grown, there is a need to assess its effectiveness in teaching students to play games. Purposes: Thus, the purposes of this study were to compare TGfU to the traditional technique-based approach. Methods: Participants were 24 sixth and 24 seventh grade students who were randomly assigned to one of four teaching groups (n = 12). Two teachers taught either 16 TGFU or traditional teaching sessions to each grade level. Traditional lessons followed the theme of a) introductory activity, b) skill and technique practice and c) game. The TGfU approach followed the theme of a) game, b) questions and challenges, c) game, d) more questions and challenges etc. Pre and post-test scores on three components were assessed. Skill development was assessed using the Henry Friedel Field Hockey Test (HFFHT), knowledge by a 30-item questionnaire and game play by a game play protocol when participants played 6 v 6 games. A 2 x 2 (Group x Time) MANOVA was used to examine difference between pre-test and post-test skill, knowledge and game play scores. Results: There were no significant differences in skill level between the two approaches. However, the TGfU group scored significantly higher on the declarative items on the knowledge test, and did significantly better than the traditional group in controlling the ball and in decision-making in game play. However, there was no difference in terms of game execution in game play. Conclusions: Findings from this article demonstrate that using the games approach can help develop student’s knowledge of field hockey, further aiding them to make better decisions in game play without being detrimental to skill levels.
